Vance or Rubio? It Doesn’t Matter

A debate is brewing within the Republican Party regarding the 2028 Presidential nominee. Should it be Vice President J.D. Vance or Secretary of State Marco Rubio? President Trump himself seems to be stirring the pot, asking people their thoughts and not revealing his own preference for now (although there are hints that he prefers Rubio). 

The debate has become more intense in recent weeks as Vance makes the rounds promoting his new book, Communion, on prominent outlets like The Joe Rogan Experience podcast. During these appearances Vance has been careful to parrot the official Trump Administration line, but at times he’s strayed ever-so-slightly, enough to raise the hackles of some of his GOP detractors.

This might all be a moot debate since there are strong indications that Rubio won’t run against the Vice President, with whom he has been friends for a number of years. But the only absolute in politics is that there are no absolutes, so I wouldn’t bet against a Rubio challenge to Vance in the 2028 GOP primaries just yet.

On paper, Vance and Rubio seem very similar: both are relatively young, intelligent conservatives. Both are Catholic and by all appearances devoted husbands and fathers, and with the birth of the latest Vance baby, both have four children. While Rubio has more experience in politics, Vance is the more charismatic (although neither approach a Bill Clinton or Donald Trump level of political magnetism). Vance seems more open to claims of deep state influence on government, but is also more likely than Rubio to push government intervention in domestic economic matters. 

Most of their differences, in other words, are on the edges, with one major exception: 

Foreign policy.

During Vance’s short political life (he only became a Senator in January 2023), he has consistently advocated for a less interventionist foreign policy. Leading into and during the 2024 campaign, he opposed US aid to Ukraine, opposed military action in Iran, and spoke against the US providing a “security umbrella” for Europe. It’s no exaggeration to say Vance, until very recently, sounded a lot more like Ron Paul than Dick Cheney.

Rubio, on the other hand, built his political career as a neoconservative advocating a robust role for the United States overseas. As as newly-minted Senator in 2011, he pushed for the US to forcibly replace Libya’s Qaddafi government, he advocated for arming Ukraine during the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea, and during his 2016 failed campaign for President, he outlined a “Rubio Doctrine” that was standard-fare neoconservative interventionist foreign policy. He was essentially a clone of Dick Cheney. Rubio did begin to temper these views, at least publicly, during the 2024 presidential campaign when they were out of line with Trump’s then-message.

Of course, I haven’t yet mentioned the huge elephant in the room when it comes to American foreign policy: Israel. Whether you support Israel as unreservedly as Mike Huckabee or think it’s the nexus of evil like Nick Fuentes, there’s no question that America’s relationship with Israel dominates many of our country’s foreign policy decisions. And because of Israel’s outsized influence here, there are few politicians who speak publicly against the Zionist cause. However, while Rubio has been a staunch ally of Israel, Vance has expressed some mild criticism of Israel from time to time, criticism that has led some Israel supporters to accuse him of antisemitism. The accusation is ridiculous: it’s clear that Vance’s sometime-opposition to Israel stems from his general non-interventionist instincts rather than any hatred of Jews.

Yet this sometime-opposition to Israel does seem to be driving much of the neoconservative opposition to Vance’s potential 2028 presidential run. Recently, the always-overwrought commentator Rod Dreher criticized Vance for not speaking out as much as Dreher thinks he should against the antisemitic “groyper” movement. Dreher, who seems to think 2026 America is the 1932 Wehrmacht Republic, apparently believes that Washington, DC is full of young antisemites plotting a new thousand-year Reich, and laments that Vance isn’t as hysterical as he is. In reality, Vance has spoken out against Fuentes and the groyper movement, even at one point telling Fuentes to “eat sh*t” for attacking his Indian wife Usha. Vance has correctly noted that the influence of Fuentes and the groypers is “overstated by people who want to avoid having a foreign-policy conversation about America’s relationship with Israel.”

So in many ways the Vance or Rubio debate is really a debate about America’s relationship with Israel. Historically Republicans have been strong supporters of Israel, but it’s clear that cracks are forming within the party regarding that blind support, especially among younger conservatives.

But here’s the thing: ultimately, it doesn’t really matter whether Vance or Rubio are president. It’s all theater. Their administrations would be extremely similar, with barely-different foreign policy and a comparable relationship with Israel. The only difference would be the level of enthusiasm coming from the Oval Office for foreign interventions and support for Israel. And whether we hand Israel billions of dollars we don’t have with enthusiasm or without it, the destruction of the Middle East and the rising inflation here look the same.

Rubio we know would conduct a bellicose foreign policy. It’s likely he would invade his parents’ home country of Cuba within his first 100 days in office (if he hasn’t convinced Trump to do it before that). He would support military engagements around the world, including in the Middle East, in Europe, and likely even in Asia against China.

Vance would be more hesitant, but I believe a Vance administration would be little different in practice than a Rubio administration. Why? Because I think the actual controlling forces in DC, typically referred to as “the deep state” and centered around the CIA, would make sure any administration (including a Democrat administration) would continue the overall foreign policy they have pushed for decades. Vance might be more reluctant to go along than Rubio, but ultimately he would go along.

Some might think I’m being too cynical, but I think the evidence is behind my Vance skepticism. During the 2024 Trump campaign, it appeared we finally had a candidate that could actually stand up to the deep state. After all, Trump had been viciously attacked by the DC “swamp”—both legally and physically—and he looked ready to truly upend the DC status quo in response. From Doge to RFK to “no new wars,” Trump 2024 was a big middle finger to the “establishment” (a more benign term for the deep state).

Yet look what happened. From the Big Beautiful (and Bloated) Bill to the quick collapse of Doge to the Epstein coverup to the Iran War, Trump’s second term has been an establishment/deep state dream come true. And J.D. Vance has gone along for the ride, with nary a peep in opposition. 

If Donald Trump, a uniquely historical figure better equipped than anyone in memory to resist the deep state, caved to its demands, why would anyone think J.D. Vance—a more conventional politician who has gone alone with, and even defended, Trump’s capitulation—wouldn’t also cave? Of course he would.

We’re not going to vote our way out of our current political crisis; more Americans are realizing this every day. It won’t matter if it’s Vance or Rubio—or even a Democrat, frankly—taking the oath of office in January 2029, because most things will stay the same regardless. For the next two years we’ll engage in intense and bitter fights, further dividing our populace into ever smaller groups, and believing the result of those fights to be existential in nature, but in the end the only “winner” will be the deep state and the DC status quo, no matter who wins in the polls.

Vance or Rubio? Meh. I’ll focus instead on making Christ our King, for He is the only one who can truly upend the status quo.